So how about an open source complete space launch system from manufacturing of rockets through launch facility and operations, to orbital operations.

All built on small sstos with the ability to launch 1 to 2 tons, ease of mass production, and recyclability in orbit into other products in an orbital factory.

The rockets are smaller to reduce the costs of infrastructure to manufacture store, transport, assemble and launch them, so agencies/organisations with less capital abailable could still have access to space.

Question: what would be the dimensions of an ssto rocket capable of launching 1, or 2 tons to leo?

The smaller the more feasible it is for a distributed network of small groups of people and small companies to clump together to run a space program. Also a lot of the manufacturing could be done by facilities that arent specialised in the space industry.

Is this a stupid approach for an open source space program? What issues or inefficiencies are there in this approach compared to large agencies capable of launching large rockets with massive cargos?

So how about an open source complete space launch system from manufacturing of rockets through launch facility and operations, to orbital operations.All built on small sstos with the ability to launch 1 to 2 tons, ease of mass production, and recyclability in orbit into other products in an orbital factory.The rockets are smaller to reduce the costs of infrastructure to manufacture store, transport, assemble and launch them, so agencies/organisations with less capital abailable could still have access to space.Question: what would be the dimensions of an ssto rocket capable of launching 1, or 2 tons to leo? The smaller the more feasible it is for a distributed network of small groups of people and small companies to clump together to run a space program. Also a lot of the manufacturing could be done by facilities that arent specialised in the space industry.Is this a stupid approach for an open source space program? What issues or inefficiencies are there in this approach compared to large agencies capable of launching large rockets with massive cargos?

I've argued that SSTO's can be produced at a comparable size and cost of small business jets, a few tens of millions of dollars:

But I am wondering if it would be possible to make a "small dumb booster" kind of setup. Cheap, reliable, no re-entry and landing required. Just get the whole thing up there with the payload, then reuse all the material that isn't the payload but we already boosted to orbit.

Is it a silly concept?

I guess if you spend so much money to build an engine and all, it sounds stupid to take them apart.

Problem is that currently there is no utility for collecting bulk mass or components in orbit, and it's an extra cost/complication/liability. Carrying your second stage (or whathaveyou) all the way to orbit means you have to figure out a safe place to put it, which usually isn't the same place you want your payload. If you have a collection point for them, then your payload needs to expend its onboard DV getting to where ever it needs to be.

The ISS could probably be twice the size it is now if it kept all of the Soyuz and other things that have gone up to it, but then it would become an unwieldy monstrosity with a huge surface area and mass what would be a nightmare to maintain and keep in orbit. The costs associated with a structure in orbit probably aren't exponential or even the square of it's cubic volume and mass, but I bet they are close.

_________________Say, can you feel the thunder in the air? Just like the moment ’fore it hits – then it’s everywhereWhat is this spell we’re under, do you care? The might to rise above it is now within your sphereMachinae Supremacy – Sid Icarus

Is there any place where I could look at detailed schematics of a rocket of this scale/complexity. I need to wrap my head around the intricacies of rocket engineering.

I am trying to find out things like how many parts, dimensions/complexity of various parts, what sort of materials and material working capability is required. How many man hours goes into building one of these etc...

I just want to have a much better idea of the complexities of rocketry. At the moment my "understanding" is extremely simplistic.

Sorry, Falcon 1e is not an SSTO, it's two stages. I missed that requirement. Vega and Taurus also loft 1-2 (metric) tonnes to LEO, but they use four stages to get there. That increases complexity due to the extra stage separations, but three of the four stages are solid rocket motors, so that makes it easier again than the two turbo pump liquid stages of F1e. You pretty much need a liquid rocket on the final stage to be able to precisely steer to the right orbit, and for a restart to circularise the orbit.

_________________Say, can you feel the thunder in the air? Just like the moment ’fore it hits – then it’s everywhereWhat is this spell we’re under, do you care? The might to rise above it is now within your sphereMachinae Supremacy – Sid Icarus

What caught my eye was the 2% payload mass fraction they give for an H2/LOX-powered SSTO launched from ground level. That's pretty much the mass fraction for the Falcon 1e, except that the F1e uses relatively simple (and thus low-efficiency) engines and kerosene/LOX. So, at least in the 1 tonne payload range, in exchange for a stage separation event you get cheaper engines and a much easier to handle fuel. Of course, one of the F1 launches failed on the stage separation, but that was an unforeseen aerodynamics issue that was easily fixed by changing the separation sequence a bit.

Neither are re-usable for these numbers if I understand correctly. For a reusable SSTO, you'd need thermal protection and landing gear, and there could be some weight savings to having only one stage there. You'd need only one heat shield/parachutes/landing gear rather than two. On the other hand, the first stage doesn't reach orbital velocity, so its shield could be simpler, and the second stage has less mass than an SSTO, which also helps. Still, reusability could tilt the advantage back to an SSTO...

_________________Say, can you feel the thunder in the air? Just like the moment ’fore it hits – then it’s everywhereWhat is this spell we’re under, do you care? The might to rise above it is now within your sphereMachinae Supremacy – Sid Icarus

Not really SSTO as the tower contraption is essentially the first stage/ booster.

Read the comments down at the bottom for an interesting technical discussion of it's merits and shortcomings.

Unfortunately they outsource their comments section to something called disqus which even if i lower the javascript security on my pc temporary to include it still does not run i dislike lowering my security to allow 3rd party systems to run code but this one seems to need 4th party code running without disclosing to me the names of the sites it wants to run it on so i miss out on the discussions on this site.

_________________Someone has to tilt at windmills.So that we know what to do when the real giants come!!!!

...Another change, she says, involves the rocket's nine Merlin 1D engines, which will be positioned in an octagonal configuration, rather than the “tic-tac-toe” placement on the current Falcon 9. “You actually want the engines around the perimeter at the tank, otherwise you are carrying that load from those engines that are not on the skin,” she says. “You've got to carry them out to the skin, because that is the primary load path for the launch vehicle."

This could have another advantage in that the octagonal arrangement of the engines makes possible the use of an aerospike in the center, if the center engine is removed. This would give the first stage engines Merlin Vacuum type performance, raising the Isp from the ca. 311 s of the Merlin 1D to the ca. 340 s of the Merlin Vacuum. This would result in a marked improvement in payload.

Bob Clark

_________________Nanotechnology now can produce the space elevator and private orbital launchers. It now also makes possible the long desired 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it:

This could have another advantage in that the octagonal arrangement of the engines makes possible the use of an aerospike in the center, if the center engine is removed.

I agree however, the catch is that you could use very little of the Merlin as we know it. You would have to rework the individual engines into the combustion chambers for the aerospike. Which means a complete re-development of not only the things that get hot and noisy, but also the entire aft end of the launch vehicle.

I think they are probably too far down the conventional development road to make that kind of change.